judgment as to rank this Arguer in any of the three orders if you have patience to read over his Pamphlet you will best see how and where to set him in his proper place We now proceed to those passages in the answer which probably have most exasperated the Author of the Exceptions and the Defence In his Exceptions he had said The Moon being present or in her present place in the Firmament at the time of the Chaos she would certainly trouble and discompose it as she does now the waters of the Sea and by that means hinder the formation of the Earth To this we answer'd that the Moon that was made the 4th day could not hinder the formation of the Earth which was made the 3d. day This was a plain intelligible answer and at the same time discover'd such a manifest blunder in the objection as could not but give an uneasie thought to him that made it However we must not deny but that he makes some attempt to shift it off in his Reply For he says the Earth formed the 3d. day was Moses's Earth which the Excepter contends for but the Earth he disputes against is the Theorist's which could not be formed the 3d. day He should have added and therefore would be hinder'd by the Moon otherwise this takes off nothing And now the question comes to a clear state for when the Excepter says the Moon would have hinder'd the formation of the Earth either he speaks upon Moses's hypothesis or upon the Theorist's hypothesis Not upon the Theorist's Hypothesis for the Theorist does not suppose the Moon present then And if he speaks upon Moses's Hypothesis the Moon that was made the 4th day must have hinder'd the formation of the Earth the 3d. day So that the objection is a blunder upon either Hypothesis Furthermore whereas he suggests that the Answerer makes use of Moses's hypothesis to confute his adversary but does not follow it himself 'T is so far true that the Theorist never said that Moses's six-days Creation was to be understood literally but however it is justly urg'd against those that understand it literally and they must not contradict that interpretation which they own and defend So much for the Moon and this first passage which I suppose was troublesome to our Author But he makes the same blunder in another place as to the Sun Both the Luminaries it seems stood in his way In the 10th Chapter of his Exceptions he gives us a new Hypothesis about the Origin of Mountains which in short is this that they were drawn or suckt out of the Earth by the influence and instrumentality of the Sun Whereas the Sun was not made according to Moses till the 4th day and the Earth was form'd the 3d. day 'T is an unhappy thing to split twice upon the same rock and upon a rock so visible He that can but reckon to four can tell whether the 3d. day or 4th day came sooner To cure this Hypothesis about the Origin of Mountains he takes great pains in his Defence and attempts to do it chiefly by help of a distinction dividing Mountains into Maritime and Inland Now 't is true says he These maritime Mountains and such as were made with the hollow of the Sea must rise when that was sunk or deprest namely the 3d. day Yet Inland ones he says might be raised some earlier and some later and by the influence of the Sun This is a weak and vain attempt to defend his notion for besides that this distinction of Maritime and Inland Mountains as arising from different causes and at different times is without any ground either in Scripture or reason if their different origin was admitted the Sun 's extracting these Inland Mountains out of the Earth would still be absurd and incongruous upon other accounts Scripture I say makes no such distinction of Mountains made at different times and from different causes This is plain seeing Moses does not mention Mountains at all in his six-six-days Creation nor any where else till the Deluge What authority have we then to make this distinction or to suppose that all the great Mountains of the Earth were not made together Besides what length of time would you require for the production of these Inland Mountains were they not all made within the six-days Creation hear what Moses says at the end of the 6th day Thus the Heavens and the Earth were finished and all the host of them And on the 7th day God ended his work which he had made Now if the Excepter say that the Mountains were all made within these six-days we will not stand with him for a day or two for that would make little difference as to the action of the Sun But if he will not confine their production to Moses's six days how does he keep to the Mosaical Hypothesis or how shall we know where he will stop in his own way for if they were not made within the six days for any thing he knows they might not be made till the Deluge seeing Scripture no where mentions Mountains before the Flood And as Scripture makes no distinction of Maritime and Inland Mountains so neither hath this distinction any foundation in Nature or Reason For there is no apparent or discernible difference betwixt Maritime and Inland Mountains nor any reason why they should be thought to proceed from different causes or to be rais'd at different times The Maritime Mountains are as rocky as ruderous and as irregular and various in their shape and posture as the Inland Mountains They have no distinctive characters nor any different properties internal or external in their matter form or composition that can give us any ground to believe that they came from a different Original So that this distinction is meerly precarious neither founded in Scripture nor reason but made for the nonce to serve a turn Besides what bounds will you give to these Maritime Mountains are they distinguisht from Inland Mountains barely by their distance from the Sea or by some other Character If barely by distance tell us then how far from the Sea do the Maritime Mountains reach and where do the Inland begin and how shall we know the Terminalis Lapis Especially in a continued chain of Mountains that reach from the Sea many hundreds of miles Inland as the Alpes from the Ocean to Pontus Euxinus and Taurus as he says fifteen hundred miles in length from the Chinese Ocean to the Sea of Pamphylia In such an uninterrupted Ridge of Mountains where do the Land-Mountains end and the Sea-mountains begin Or what mark is there whereby we may know that they are not all of the same race or do not all spring from the same original Such obvious enquiries as these shew sufficiently that the distinction is meerly arbitrary and fictitious But suppose this distinction was admitted and the Maritime Mountains made the 3d. day but Inland Mountains I know not
or STARV'D to death The thing is this in the story of the Deluge it is no where said of men and living creatures that they were drown'd but they dyed or were destroyed Those that are drown'd are destroy'd I imagine as well as those that are starv'd so this proves nothing But that the destruction here spoken of was by drowning seems plain enough both from God's words to Noah before the Flood and by his words after the Flood when he makes his Covenant with Noah in this manner I will establish my Covenant with you neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a Flood Now to be cut off or destroy'd by the waters of a Flood is methinks to be drown'd And I take all flesh to comprehend the Animal World or at least all mankind Accordingly our Saviour says Matt. 24. 39. in Noah's time the flood came and took them all away namely all mankind This is one Expedient our Author hath found out to help to bear off the inconveniences that attend his fifteen-cubit Deluge namely by converting a good part of it into a Famine But he hath another Expedient to joyn to this by increasing the Waters and that is done by making the Common Surface of the Earth or the highest parts of it as he calls them to signifie ambiguously or any height that pleases him and consequently fifteen Cubits above that signifies also what height he thinks fit But in reality there is no surface common to the Earth but either the exteriour surface whether it be high or low or the ordinary level of the Earth as it is a Globe or convex Body If by his common surface he mean the exteriour surface that takes in Mountains as well as Low-lands or any other superficial parts of the Earth And therefore if the Deluge was fifteen Cubits above this common surface it was fifteen Cubits above the highest Mountains as we say it was But if by the common surface he mean the common level of the Earth as it is a Globular or convex Body then we gave it a right name when we call'd it the ordinary level of the Earth namely that level or surface that lies in an equal convexity with the surface of the Sea And his fifteen Cubits of water from that level would never drown the World Lastly If by the common surface of the Earth he understand a 3d. surface different from both these he must define it and define the height of it that we may know how far this fifteen-cubit Deluge rise from some known basis One known basis is the surface of the Sea and that surface of the Land that lies in an equal convexity with it tell us then if the waters of the Deluge were but fifteen Cubits higher than the surface of the Sea that we may know their height by some certain and determinate measure and upon that examine the Hypothesis But to tell us they were fifteen Cubits above not the Mountains or the Hills but the Highlands or the highest parts of the common surface of the Earth and not to tell us the height of these highest parts from any known basis nor how they are distinguisht from Hills and Mountains which incur our sences and are the measures given us by Moses This I say is but to cover his Hypothesis with ambiguities when he had made it without grounds and to leave room to set his Water-mark higher or lower as he should see occasion or necessity And of this indeed we have an instance in this land Pamphlet for he has rais'd his Water-mark there more than an hundred Cubits higher than it was before In his Exceptions he said not that the waters were no where higher than just fifteen Cubits above the ground they might in most places be thirty forty or fifty Cubits higher But in his Defence he says the Waters might be an hundred or two hundred Cubits higher than the general ordinary plain of the Earth Now what security have we but that in the next Pamphlet they may be 500 or a 1000 Cubits higher than the ordinary surface of the Earth This is his 2d Expedient raising his Water-mark indefinitely But if these two methods be not sufficient to destroy Mankind and the animate World he hath yet a third which cannot fail and that is Destroying them by Evil Angels Flectere si nequeo This is his last refuge to which purpose he hath these words When Heaven was pleas'd to give Satan leave he caus'd the fire to consume Job's sheep and caused the wind to destroy his Children And how easily could these spirits that are ministers of God's vengeance have made the waters of the Flood fatal to those Creatures that might have escaped them if any could have done it As suppose an Eagle or a Faulcon The Devil and his crue catcht them all and held their moses under water However methinks this is not fair play to deny the Theorist the liberty to make use of the ministery of good Angels when he himself makes use of evil Spirits These Sir and such like passages where the notions of the Excepter have been expos'd were the causes I imagine of his angry reply Some Creatures you know are more fierce after they are wounded and some upon a gentle chase will fly from you but if you press them and put them to extremities they turn and fly in your face I see by our Author's example how easily in these personal altercations reasoning degenerates into wrangling and wrangling into scolding However if I may judge from these two Hypotheses which he hath made about the rise of Mountains and a fifteen-cubit Deluge of all trades I should never advise him to turn Hypothesis-maker It does not seem at all to lie to his hand and things never thrive that are undertaken Diis iratis genioque sinistro But as we have given you some account of this Author 's Philosophical notions so it may be you will expect that we should entertain you with some pieces of his wit and eloquence The truth is he seems to delight and value himself upon a certain kind of Country-wit and popular eloquence and I will not grudge you the pleasure of enjoying them both in such instances as I remember Speaking in contempt of the Theory and the Answer which is one great subject of his wit he expresses himself thus But if arguments be so weak that they will fall with a fillip why should greater force be used to beat them down To draw a Rapier to stab a Fly or to charge a Pistol to kill a Spider I think would be preposterous I think so too in this we 're agreed In another place being angry with the Theorist that he would not acknowledge his errours to him he hath these words 'T is unlucky for one to run his head against a post But when he hath done if he will say he did not do it and stand in and defend what he
its superficial region when it came first out of a Chaos If there was there was also in the Chaos out of which that Earth was immediately made And if there was no oleagineous matter in the new-made Earth how came the soil to be so fertile so fat so unctuous I say not only fertile but particularly fat and unctuous for he uses these very words frequently in the description of that soil And all fat and unctuous liquors are oleagineous and accordingly we have us'd those words promiscuously in the description of that Region Eng. Theor. Chap. 5. understanding only such unctuous liquors as are lighter than water and swim above it and consequently would stop and entangle the terrestrial particles in their fall or descent And seeing such unctuous and oleagineous particles were in the new-made Earth they must certainly have been in the matter out of which it was immediately form'd namely in the Chaos All the rest of this Chapter we are willing to leave in its full force apprehending the Theory or the Answer to be in no danger from such argumentations or reflections The 4th Chap. is very short and hath nothing argumentative The 5th Chap. is concerning the cold in the circumpolar parts which was spoken to in the Answer sufficiently and we stand to that What is added about extraordinary providence will be treated of in its proper place The 6th Chap. is also short against this particular that it is not safe to argue upon suppositions actually false And I think there needs no more to prove it than what was said in the Answer Chap. 7. is chiefly about texts of Scripture concerning which I see no occasion of saying any more than what is said in the Review of the Theory He says p. 49. that the Theorist catches himself in a trap by allowing that Ps. 33. 7. is to be understood of the ordinary posture of the waters and yet applying it to their extraordinary posture under the vault of the Earth But that was not an extraordinary posture according to the Theorist but their natural posture in the first Earth Yet I allow the expression might have been better thus in a level or spherical convexity as the Earth He interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 53. which we render the Garden of the Lord not to be Paradise but any pleasant Garden yet gives us no authority either of ancient Commentator or Version for this novel and paradoxical interpretation The Septuagint render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Vulgate Paradisus Domini and all ancient Versions that I have seen render it to the same sence Does he expect then that his single word and authority should countervail all the ancient Translators and Interpreters To the last place alledged by the Theorist Prov. 8. 28. he says the Answerer charges him unjustly that he understands by that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no more than the rotundity or spherical figure of the Abyss Which he says is a point of nonsence I did not think the charge had been so high however seeing some Interpreters understand it so But if he understand by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the banks or shores of the Sea then he should have told us how those banks or shores are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 super faciem Abyssi as it is in the Text. Pag. 59. He says the Excepter does not misrepresent the Theorist when he makes him to affirm the construction of the First Earth to have been meerly mechanical and he cites to this purpose two places which only prove that the Theorist made use of no other causes nor see any defect in them but never affirm'd that these were the only causes You may see his words to this purpose expresly Engl. Theor. p. 65. whereof the Excepter was minded in the Answer p. 3. In the last Paragraph of this Chapter if he affirms any thing he will have the Pillars of the Earth to be understood literally Where then pray do these Pillars stand that bear up the Earth or if they bear up the Earth what bears them up what are their Pedestals or their foundations But he says Hypotheses must not regulate Scripture though in natural things but be regulated by it and by the letter of it I would gladly know then how his Hypothesis of the motion of the Earth is regulated by Scripture and by the letter of it And he unhappily gives an instance just contrary to himself namely of the Anthropomorphites for they regulate natural reason and philosophy by the letter or literal sence of Scripture and therein fall into a gross errour Yet we must not call the Author injudicious for fear of giving offence The 8th Chap. begins with the Earths being carried directly under the Equinoctial before its change of situation without any manner of obliquity in her site or declination towards either of the Tropicks in HER COVRSE Here you see when the Earth chang'd its situation it chang'd according to his Astronomy two things its site and its course its site upon its axis and its course in the heavens And so he says again in the next paragraph put the case the Earth shift her posture and also her CIRCVIT about the Sun in which she persisted till the Deluge Here is plainly the same notion repeated that the Earth chang'd not only its site but also its road or course about the Sun And in consequence of this he supposes its course formerly to have been under the Equinoctial and now under the Ecliptick it being translated out of the one into the other at its change Yet he seems now to be sensible of the absurdity of this doctrine and therefore will not own it to have been his sence and as an argument that he meant otherwise he alledges that he declar'd before that by the Earths ritght situation to the Sun is meant that the axis of the Earth was always kept in a parallelism to that of the Ecliptick But what 's this to the purpose This speaks only of the site of the Earth whereas his errour was in supposing its course or annual orbit about the Sun as well as its site upon its own axis to have been different and chang'd at the Deluge as his words already produc'd against him plainly testifie What follows in this Chapter is concerning the perpetual Equinox And as to the reasoning part of what he says in defence of his Exceptions we do not grudge him the benefit of it let it do him what service it can And as to the Historical part he will not allow a witness to be a good witness as to matter of fact if he did not assign true causes of that matter of fact To which I only reply tho' Tiverton Steeple was not the cause of Goodwin sands as the Kentish men thought yet their testimony was so far good That there were such Sands and such a Steeple He also commits an errour as to the nature of Tradition When a
Tradition is to be made out it is not expected that it should be made appear that none were ignorant of that Tradition in former Ages or that all that mention'd it understood the true grounds and extent of it but 't is enough to shew the plain footsteps of it in Antiquity as a Conclusion tho' they did not know the reasons and premises upon which it depended For instance The Conflagration of the world is a doctrine of Antiquity traditionally deliver'd from age to age but the Causes and manner of the Conflagration they either did not know or have not deliver'd to us In like manner that the first age and state of the world was without change of Seasons or under a perpetual Equinox of this we see many footsteps in Antiquity amongst the Jews Christians Heathens Poets Philosophers but the Theory of this perpetual Equinox the causes and manner of it we neither find nor can reasonably expect from the Ancients So much for the Equinox This Chapter as it begun with an errour so it unhappily ends with a paralogism namely that because 30 days made a month at the Deluge therefore those days were neither longer nor shorter than ours are at present Tho' we have sufficiently expos'd this before yet one thing more may be added in answer to his confident conclusion in these words But to talk as the Answerer does that the Month should be lengthen'd by the Days being so is a fearful blunder indeed For let the days by slackening the Earth's diurnal motion have been never so long yet its annual motion continuing the same the Month must needs have kept its usual length only fewer days would have made it up 'T is not usual for a Man to persevere so confidently in the same errour As if the intervals of time hours days months years could not be proportionably increast so as to contain one another in the same proportion they did before and yet be every one increast as to absolute duration Take a Clock for instance that goes too slow The circuit of the Dial-plate is 12. hours let these represent the 12 Signs in his Zodiack and the hand to be the Earth that goes thorough them all and consequently the whole circuit of the Dial-plate represents the Year Suppose as we said this Clock to go too slow this will not hinder but still fifteen minutes make a quarter in this Clock four quarters make an hour and 12. hours the whole circuit of the Dial-plate But every one of these intervals will contain more time than it did before according to absolute duration or according to the measure of another Clock that does not go too slow This is the very case which he cannot or will not comprehend but concludes thus in effect that because the hour consists still of four quarters in this Clock therefore it is no longer than ordinary The 9th Chapter also begins with a false notion that Bodies quiescent as he hath now alter'd the case have a nitency downwards Which mistake we rectified before if he please Then he proceeds to the Oval figure of the Earth And many flourishes and harangues are made here to little purpose For he goes upon a false supposition that the Waters of the Chaos were made Oval by the weight or gravitation of the Air. A thing that never came into the words or thoughts of the Theorist Yet upon this supposition he runs into the deserts of Bilebulgerid and the waters of Mare del Zur Words that make a great noise but to no effect If he had pleas'd he might have seen the Theorist made no use of the weight of the Air upon this occasion by the instance he gave of the pressure of the Moon and the flux of the waters by that pressure Which is no more done by the gravitation of the Air than the Banks are prest in a swift current and narrow chanel by the gravitation of the water But he says rarefied Air makes less resistance than gross Air and rarefied water in an Aeolipile it may be he thinks presses with less force than unrarefied Air possibly may be rarefied to that degree as to lessen its resistance but we speak of Air moderately agitated so as to be made only more brisk and active Moreover he says the waters that lay under the Poles must have risen perpendicularly and why might they not as well have done so under the Equator The waters that lay naturally and originally under the Poles did not rise at all but the waters became more deep there by those that were thrust thither from the middle parts of the Globe Upon the whole I do not perceive that he hath weaken'd any one of the Propositions upon which the formation of an Oval Earth depended Which were these First that the tendency of the waters from the center of their motion would be greater and stronger in the Equinoctial parts than in the Polar or in those parts where they mov'd in greater circles and consequently swifter than in those where they were mov'd in lesser circles and slower Secondly Agitated Air hath more force to repel what presses against it than stagnant Air and that the Air was more agitated and rarefied under the Equinoctial parts than under the Poles Thirdly Waters hinder'd and repell'd in their primary tendency take the easiest way they can to free themselves from that force so as to persevere in their motion Lastly to flow laterally upon a Plain or to ascend upon an inclin'd Plain is easier than to rise perpendicularly These are the Propositions upon which that discourse depended and I do not find that he hath disprov'd any one of them And this Sir is a short account of a long Chapter impertinencies omitted Chap. 10. Is concerning the original and causes of Mountains which the Excepter unhappily imputes to the heat and influence of the Sun Whether his Hypothesis be effectually confuted or not I am very willing to stand to the judgment of any unconcern'd person that will have the patience to compare the Exceptions and the Answer in this Chapter Then as to his Historical arguments as he calls them to prove there were Mountains before the Flood from Gyants that sav'd themselves from the Flood upon Mount Sion and Adam's wandring several hundreds of years upon the Mountains of India These and such like which he brought to prove that there were Mountains before the Flood he now thinks fit to renounce and says he had done so before by an anticipative sentence But if they were condemn'd before by an anticipative sentence as fables and forgeries why were they stuft into his Book and us'd as Traditional evidence against the Theory Lastly he contends in this Chapter for Iron and Iron-tools before the Flood and as early as the time of Cainâ— because he built a City which he says could not be built without Iron and Iron-tools To which it was Answer'd that Cain's like Paris or London he had reason to believe that they